1. The Defendant’s payment order against the Plaintiff is based on the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2014Hu50757.

1. The fact that the Defendant, on February 24, 2005, acquired a credit card payment claim against the Plaintiff from the Hyundai Department Store Co., Ltd., and on August 4, 2014, upon filing an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order claiming the payment of the above payment claim under Seoul Western District Court Decision 2014 tea and 50757, the said payment order was served on the Plaintiff on August 27, 2014, and the confirmation became final and conclusive in this court is either a dispute between the parties or substantial.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that compulsory execution based on the above payment order is not permissible since the above payment order has expired by prescription, while the defendant asserts that the plaintiff renounced the benefit of prescription because the plaintiff did not object to the direct payment order even after receiving the payment order.

B. Determination as follows: (a) Plaintiff’s obligation of using credit card was incurred before February 24, 2005, which was the date of assignment of credit; and (b) 5 years have elapsed since the commercial extinctive prescription, which was before the date of application for the above payment order.

The reason why the plaintiff was served with the payment order and did not raise an objection within the objection period is that it is difficult to recognize that the intent to waive the statute of limitations was clearly expressed, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Since the defendant's claim to take over the money has expired by prescription, compulsory execution based on the above payment order shall not be permitted.

3. citing the Plaintiff’s claim.